• (971) 722-4180
  • federation@pccffap.org
CONTACT

Trupp Study Overview and Questions

Background

Since 2019, the Federation has sought information about how the College places Academic Professionals (APs) on the salary scale. Through two rounds of contract negotiations (2019 and 2023) and a group grievance that went to arbitration in 2020, it became apparent that the college did not have a coherent classification system, and historical information about how APs were placed on the salary scale had been lost or destroyed. 

The Tentative Agreement signed in February, 2024 included the following agreement between FFAP and the PCC Administration:

“PCC will conduct a market-rate compensation analysis, including a review of all College
positions, classifications, and salaries during the term of a successor agreement. Followin this analysis, PCC will receive recommendations for re-classifications and salary adjustments. The parties agree to address such changes through the midterm wages and benefits reopener under Article 18. “

In 2023-24, all PCC employees were asked to provide information to Trupp HR to inform a classification and compensation study. APs completed lengthy Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs), and faculty provided information via a feedback form. Below we’ve summarized the findings as they relate to faculty and APs, which fall into five categories: Classification, Compensation, Salary Structure, Span of Control, and Compensation Practices. Our editorializing and questions are bold.

*Check your email for link to the report, which was sent to all members on October 3. Email federation@pccffap.org with any questions.

Classification Study (relates primarily to APs): Job classifications represent duties, responsibilities, or qualifications that are common across multiple positions. The study proposed job title conventions for non-manager, non-instructional staff (Appendix D). It recommended eight AP roles for consolidation:

  • New Title: Student Success Advisor combines Academic Advising Specialists, Enrollment Advisor, Learning Skills Specialist. These are all AP Level 3
  • New Title: Program Coordination Specialist combines Alternate Media Coordinator, Dual Credit Coordinator, Education Center Coordinator, Events Coordinator, Online Learning Coaching Coordinator, Service-Learning Coordinator, STEM and Design Coordinator. These are all AP Level 4 except the Dual Credit Coordinator which is Level 5.

Our Classification Questions (so far)

  • Did Trupp provide updated classification and position descriptions (referenced on p. 4)  If so can we see them? 
  • Explain the graphic on p. 5. What are Equity Groups?
  • Is the recommendation that AP positions not identified for consolidation retain their current title and AP Level? 
  • Regarding job title consolidations: If combining AP Level 4 and 5 jobs under one classification, is the recommendation to change the salary placement as well? 
  • The job title conventions do not distinguish between Classified/hourly positions and AP/Exempt positions. We are concerned that this could cause confusion among managers since our work is governed by 2 different contracts. 

Trupp used CompAnalyst by Salary.com and CUPA-HR which focuses specifically on higher ed. CUPA-HR compared PCC against higher ed (including 4 year institutions) with 3,000-25,000 student FTE. 92% of positions Trupp found to be “below market” are managers or confidential.

Trupp finds that overall faculty and APs are above-market:

  • APs are 125% of market
  • Faculty are 123% of market

Trupp recommends increasing salaries for CTE instructors in 14 disciplines (listed on p.22)

Non-instructional positions that are below market according to Trupp include

  • 2 APs (Major Gifts Officer and Annual Giving Officer)
  • 4 Classified
  • 11 Confidential
  • 51 Management

Our COMPENSATION questions (so far)

  • More discussion is needed around comparator institutions and methodologies. Many peer institutions selected do not match the scale and complexity of PCC (multi-campus, large urban districts). Others have unresolved accreditation problems.
  • Why did Trupp’s analysis use the middle of the pay range as a benchmark when comparing PCC faculty and APs to other institutions? Most employees work at PCC for 6-8 years before reaching the mid-range.

Trupp recommends narrower pay ranges for APs and Faculty. 

  • Faculty: recommend eliminating the top and bottom steps
  • APs: recommend eliminating top 2 and bottom 2 steps

FFAP is open to discussing salary ranges but we will not agree to salary reductions or freezes for our members. Our interest is in helping our members advance more quickly.

Span of control refers to the total number of employees under a manager’s oversight, including direct and indirect reports (i.e. individuals who report to a manager’s direct reports). Trupp found many inconsistencies between management titles and responsibilities. They recommend clearer criteria for job titles and a review of managers with no direct reports. They also recommend bringing casual employees into the bargaining units. (p. 24)

More than one-third of “Managers” have 0 direct reports. Another one-third of managers have fewer than three direct reports. 

Our INTERNAL STAFFING – SPAN OF CONTROL questions (so far):

  • Trupp states that “Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff were calculated for both PCC and comparators by considering a full-time employee as 1.0 FTE, while part-time employees count as 1.0 FTE for every three.” (p. 19) Why is part-time FTE being estimated in this way?
  • We need more clarity on the External Staffing Study (p. 16) which uses “occupational categories” that do not clearly align with current or recommended classification/ position descriptions at PCC. For example, Trupp found PCC’s “Community Service, Legal, Arts, and Media” staffing is 608% higher than comparators. But it’s not clear who this includes. 
  • The Full Staffing Analysis table (p. 18) uses two different comparator categories: one for all higher ed including four-year schools. The second includes only Associate Degree granting institutions. Are these different from what was used for salary comparators, and if so, why? 
  • Does “Student & Academic Affairs and Other Education Services” include advisors? If so, the finding that PCC staffing is 52% of national average and 42% when compared to comparator 2-year colleges seems to support the federation’s longstanding claim that PCC needs to hire more advisors.

Trupp reviewed the pay practices and policies and made the following recommendations for faculty/APs:

  • Rather than PCC’s current practice of placing all new employees at Step 1-3, PCC should consider a new employee’s qualifications relative to other employees in the same classification and/or equity group. 
  • When determining initial salary placement, education that exceeds the minimum qualifications for the position should be considered. This supports FFAP’s position on advanced degree pay
  • Currently, an AP who is promoted or whose position is reclassified cannot receive a pay increase of more than 5%. Trupp recommends eliminating this 5% limitation and instead placing the salary based on the employee’s qualification relative to others currently in the same role and equity group. This recommendation is good for APs
  • Trupp recommends bilingual skills requirements be documented in job descriptions, and a pay differential for employees who demonstrate bilingual proficiency through a standardized assessment. FFAP supports a bilingual differential that is applied more broadly since many members use bilingual skills that are not required in their job descriptions. 
  • Trupp recommends job documentation be updated every 2 years or when PCC undergoes structural changes.
Search

Share This

Other News

PCCFFAP LOGO
Lost your password?
Don't have an account yet? Sign up
Contact Us
Facebook Instagram Twitter